“Not the business of schools to lead kids to inner peace”
The California Catholic Daily recently had an article critical of teaching meditation in public schools (“Not the business of schools to lead kids to inner peace”.
The piece smacks of sour grapes — we’re not allowed to have kids praying but “they” are allowed to teach them meditation. It’s also marred by a misunderstanding, which is the conflation of mindfulness meditation with Transcendental Meditation. Here’s the slick join:
“Emerson Elementary, however, has but one of many such mindfulness programs, the number of which have grown nationwide to more than 100. One organization that is encouraging schools to adopt meditation practices for students is the Hollywood-based David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace. The Lynch Foundation promotes Transcendental Meditation…”
There you go. Quicker than a pedophile priest being transferred to a new parish, the CCD lumps two completely different traditions together.
Now Transcendental Meditation involves reciting mantras, which are essentially the names of Hindu deities. It’s already been found to be a form of religious practice, and therefore not permissible in public schools. In 1977, Transcendental Meditation was ruled a religion by the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, in the case of Malnak v. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Last year David Lynch’s foundation withdrew a grant to Terra Linda High School after an outcry about establishing a Transcendental Meditation club there.
Mindfulness meditation, on the other hand, involves cultivating an attitude of attentiveness through focusing on the breath, and by doing so becoming more aware of thoughts and emotions that arise. Instead of getting caught up in those thoughts and feelings the practitioner stands back from them and simply observes them. Thus, thoughts that would cause anxiety, for example, are allowed simply to pass by, without being obsessed upon and without leading to the intensification of worry and fear. This doesn’t involve religious belief of any kind, nor the statement of religious belief (as Christian prayer tends to do), nor the use of the names of deities. Rather it’s a kind of exercise, not unlike mental aerobics.
Mindfulness exercises do come from the Buddhist tradition of course, and Buddhism is arguably a religion. However they can, as I’ve said, be taught simply as mental exercises. It’s worth noting that trigonometry and geometry evolved as part of Ancient Greek religious practice — Pythagoras was a religious teacher and the exploration of geometry was the search for divine truth — and yet we have no problem extracting trigonometry from its religious context and understanding it as a purely mathematical discipline.
So mindfulness meditation and TM are completely different, although you wouldn’t know that from reading the article, although it does give the last word to a Catholic proponent of mindfulness meditation, who observes: “What’s religious about learning to follow your breath?”
The answer or course, is “nothing.”
But we won’t have heard the last of this. The article indicates that secular humanists are upset by the teaching of meditation in school, although it’s not clear whether the commentator from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State was talking about mindfulness meditation or TM (or both) when he says “It’s not the business of schools to lead kids to inner peace through a spiritual process.” I think we can expect a fair amount of resistance to build as mindfulness meditation — having already being widely shown in scientific trials to have psychological and physical health benefits — continues to grow in schools.
Such resistance is, I believe, healthy. I think it’s vital that we do stop US schools from promoting specific religions, and a watchful eye should be kept on anyone who wishes to promote spiritual practice there. I’d even welcome a court case because I’m convinced that any reasonable judge would confirm that mindfulness meditation is not in fact a religious practice. In short, “bring it on!”
15 Responses to ““Not the business of schools to lead kids to inner peace””
About this entry
You’re currently reading ““Not the business of schools to lead kids to inner peace”,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Aug 10 2007
Tags and categories
Category: Meditation & practice, Religion & Society
Regarding TM:
Many critics consider Transcendental Meditation a cult led by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. For an alternative view of the TM Movement, readers may be interested in checking out TM-Free Blog, TranceNet.net, or my counseling site, KnappFamilyCounseling.com, where individuals recovering from Transcendental Meditation and similar groups will find helpful information.
John M. Knapp, LMSW
http://KnappFamilyCounseling.com/
It seems this is a stock comment you’ve posted on many blogs. That’s not a bad thing in itself, but wouldn’t it make more sense to at least make the comment relevant to the blog you’re commenting on? For example, what’s the point of saying “an alternative view of the TM Movement”? Alternative to what? Are you implying that the post above offered a positive view of TM?
Bodhipaksa,
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment. Yes, this is a “stock comment.” I attempt to cover many, many blogs each day and have relatively little time to spend on each blog. Also, I’ve tried to develop the most neutral response that I can — offering the option to readers of checking out information for themselves, without attempting to proselytize them. As to the use of the word “alternative,” I did not mean it as an alternative to your post, but rather as alternative to the material the TM movement publicizes. I’ll change my wording in the future to be more precise.
Again, thanks for expressing your concerns.
John M. Knapp, LMSW
KnappFamilyCounseling.com/
Hi John,
Thanks in turn for checking in in person! I appreciate your desire to cover as many blogs as possible. Posting messages that are more personal and relevant would probably help you more in the long-term, I would think. Some bloggers might be inclined to treat a stock comment as spam and delete it.
(Here I am with hardly anyone commenting on my blog and I’m giving one of the few commenters a hard time!)
Anyway, I do appreciate hearing from you.
All the best,
Bodhipaksa
Excellent point that different kinds of meditation shouldn’t be lumped together.
Regarding Malnak vs. Yogi. I’ve looked at the judgment. An undisputed fact in the case is that the mantras are meaningless sounds. Also, the case focused primarily on a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence that included Transcendental Meditation. The current programs in schools don’t include the curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence. The judgment did enjoin teaching of the Science of Creative Intelligence and Transcendental Meditation in public schools in New Jersey. Whether Transcendental Meditation by itself is a religion would probably have to be taken up in another suit. In the opinion of a top legal scholar, it’s not.
Jim
Jim Karpen makes a good point. As a neurologist, I feel quite comfortable recommending the TM technique to individuual patients of any religious (or non-religious) background, and I’m excited about what it can bring to students in a school program. The postive health effects of TM have been so well documented. How can we not offer this to our students? Some look at the origin of the TM technique in the Vedic tradition, and see only religion. Others like myself, see the health benefits as the fulfillment of the science of medicine. No matter the justification, in the end it is this simple mental technique, not a philosophy, that is being offered, and will improve student performance and health.
G. Kaplan MDPhD
Interesting post, Jim. I haven’t read the full judgment, but what I have read seems clearly to say that in this case TM itself was judged to be a religious practice: “That the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation and the teaching thereof, the concepts of the field of pure creative intelligence, creative intelligence and bliss consciousness, the textbook entitled Science of Creative Intelligence for Secondary Education–First Year Course–Dawn of the First Year of the Age of Enlightenment, and the puja ceremony, are all religious in nature within the context of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” (my emphasis)
Of course another court might see things differently. The judgment may even be wrong in some regards — there were certainly some questionable statements about Buddhism in there. Still, they did see TM as a religious practice, if I’m reading the summary correctly.
The judgment does say, as you point out, that the TM mantras are “meaningless sounds.” Speaking as a Buddhist, I can say that “OM” is a “meaningless sound” and yet I’d also recognize that it’s replete with connotations that make it quite different from a made-up meaningless sound like “bleen” or “nung.” I’d be very comfortable teaching mindfulness meditation in a public school (I have done, in fact) but I wouldn’t ever get a class of schoolkids to chant “OM”. The sound is meaningless, but inextricably tied up with concepts that are religious in the commonly accepted sense of the word.
I believe that the same probably applies to TM mantras. They’re meaningless, but nevertheless they are “religious.”
Thanks for posting, Gary. The way my mind works is this: if we shouldn’t deny students TM in schools because it has health benefits, then should we also sanction school prayer if, say, the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer is also shown to have health benefits? I think there are less “religious” forms of meditation (such as mindfulness meditation) that would be more appropriate.
Of course someone is going to start a court case about mindfulness meditation, arguing that it’s a religious practice, but I think that ultimately it will be judged to be a secular exercise.
Further to the analogy I used of geometry having come from a religious context and now being seen as secular, I’d like to highlight this wonderful piece of tomfoolery and spoofery concerning the Biblical value of pi. Delicious!
All of the concepts elaborated in the judgment are part of the course in the Science of Creative Intelligence. The judgment stipulates “Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation.” It’s not obvious that TM by itself would be considered a religion, and would likely take another suit to determine. Harvard Constitutional Law Scholar Lawrence Tribe writes that the practice of the Transcendental Meditation program in public schools is constitutionally permissible: American Constitutional Law, pp. 827–8 (1978). That opinion is shared by Carter Phillips. So it still seems to be an open question in terms of the law. But not, of course, in my opinion. : ) And yours, which I respect.
Jim
P.S. The concurring opinion of appellate judge Adams rejected the lower court argument that the puja violates the Establishment Clause.
Yeah, that slash does introduce an ambiguity. Until I read the entire ruling I’m happy to accept your and professor Tribe’s conclusion. Thanks for the legal education!
I’m rather shocked, frankly, that a judge would see puja as not violating the Establishment Clause. Most surprising! Can you say, in brief, what his reasoning was?
Thanks for asking. I don’t have immediate access to Judge Adams’s opinion, but do have excerpts. From what I understand, he spends considerable time distinguishing the puja (which he refers to as “a secular puja, quite common in Eastern cultures”) from unlawful school prayer because (quoting from his opinion): “(a) the Puja was never performed in a school classroom, or even on government property; (b) it was never performed during school hours, but only on a Sunday; (c) it was performed only once in the case of each student; (d) it was entirely in Sanskrit, with neither the student nor, apparently, the teacher who chanted it, knowing what the foreign words meant. Moreover, the elements of involuntariness present in Engel and Schempp are wholly absent here.” Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 203 (3rd Cir., 1979).
I can see another potential ground for having students performing puja without violating the Establishment Clause, which is that it’s clear to them that they’re doing it as “participant observers.” The one time I’ve ever done mantras with public students is with university students, although I felt rather uneasy about the whole experience — more than they did, in fact.
The fact that no one knew what they were chanting is a hoot!
In response to the post from Mr. Knapp, I checked out the three above mentioned websites of his, and I personally find that his sites seem to lack more than a tinge of objectivity. In fact, it appears that his sites are solely devoted to blatant, wholesale defamation of Transcendental Meditation and the TM organization. I have been looking into the 600+ research studies on TM, and I am quite impressed not only with the broad range of the research, but also the degree to which these meditation studies have been published in leading peer-reviewed journals, such as the International Journal of Neuroscience, the Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine, the AMA’s ‘Archives’ journal, the Journal of Clinical Psychology, and many others. It is also significant that these meditation studies have been conducted at the most prestigious universities and medical schools, such as Harvard, Stanford, UCLA, and Yale. Knapp claims in his sites that TM is a “cult.” The National Institutes of Health have awarded $24 million in research grants for scientists to study the effects of TM. I doubt that NIH would grant this much money for scientists to research an ineffectual “cult” practice. Such research grants are highly competitive and very hard to get and the applicant researchers are thoroughly scrutinized by the NIH. I know people who have been practicing TM for many years; I mentioned this “cult” accusation to one of them, and she laughed and replied, “How can something that I do at home, by myself, for my own personal benefit be a cult?” I’m not sure what Knapp’s motivations are, or what is the basis of his opinions. I know that some people feel that meditation is a threat to their religion. If the technique benefits people, then shouldn’t such fears be allayed and shouldn’t therapists and psychiatrists evaluate meditation on the more solid basis of empirical research? Knapp’s insinuation that people meditating need to “recover,” as if from some trama or breakdown, falls flat in the face of the evidence, which shows that the direction of growth that meditators exhibit is toward balance, inner peace and stability. The dedicated meditators I know seem to become happier over time the longer they meditate. I’m actually considering the TM practice for my own personal benefit.
For anyone interested in meditation, I recommend a book edited by Jonathan Shear, “The Experience of Meditation,” which features experts of the great traditions of meditation—Zen, TM, Tibetan Buddhism, Sufism, Yoga Meditation, etc.— all defining their own forms of meditation. The book has an excellent introduction by Ken Wilbur and presents all the main approaches in a fair and erudite format. It also addresses some of Knapp’s objections, such as: can meditation lead to negative results, is there significant benefit, and what does/can science say about it.
I’m very hesitant to use the word “cult” myself. I look at the Catholic Church, for example, and see an institution that is more interested in protecting pederast priests than it is in protecting the children they abuse. And then there’s the belief system — the bread literally turns into the body of Christ? really?). I could call that a cult, in the modern pejorative sense.
And there are the charismatic churches, the TV evangelists, the folks that dismiss all scientific knowledge in order to assert that the Earth is 6000 years old. I could call them cults as well. I could even call modern corporations and political parties cults because of the groupthink that goes on in those bodies. But then the word would be so overused that it’s meaningless. Basically it seems to me that all human organizations have a tendency to exhibit cult-like behaviors.
Even (and perhaps especially) anti-cult organizations are prone to group-think, absolute certainty, the tendency to be selective about the evidence they examine, the tendency to ignore reality when it clashes with preconceptions. Perhaps Mr. Knapp is caught up in that mindset — I can’t profess any inside knowledge.
The worst I could say about the TM organization is that it appears very focused on money. They charge a lot for their teachings. They do very little work (or so I’ve heard) with people who can’t afford their high fees. That could be said to qualify them as a cult, but then that label might also have to be applied to many conventional churches, not to mention health clubs, massage therapists, golf instructors, or whatever; they all charge a lot of money for their teachings.
I think you make a very valid point, tomwalabala, about meditation being seen as a threat to conventional religion. I’m sure this is part of the animus against meditation that’s seen in the Catholic Daily article above, and I’m quite sure that mindfulness meditation is on a collision course with that animus. Perhaps TM is to some extent a lightning rod because they’re seen as being a bit more “out there,” a bit more “mystical,” and a bit more corporate.